ROC Imposes Penalty on Directors for failure to furnish MBP-1 and DIR-8 to Secretarial Auditor

ROC imposes Rs. 1 lakh penalty on directors for failing to maintain MBP-1 and DIR-8 under Companies Act

Failure to Maintain MBP-1 and DIR-8 Records Triggers Penalty under Section 184

Meetu Kumari | Apr 6, 2026 |

ROC Imposes Penalty on Directors for failure to furnish MBP-1 and DIR-8 to Secretarial Auditor

ROC Imposes Penalty on Directors for failure to furnish MBP-1 and DIR-8 to Secretarial Auditor

The Registrar of Companies (ROC), Bangalore initiated adjudication proceedings against AVK Valves India Private Limited and its directors for non-compliance with disclosure requirements under the Companies Act, 2013. During inquiry, it was noted from the Secretarial Audit Report (MGT-8) that the company failed to maintain statutory records such as Form MBP-1 and DIR-8 for the financial year ending 31.03.2022.

The company, in its reply, claimed that such records were available for most directors except one. However, the ROC found that no documentary evidence was produced either during inquiry or adjudication to substantiate this claim. It was also observed that the company had failed to provide these records to the Secretarial Auditor, thereby confirming non-compliance. Despite an opportunity of hearing, the explanation offered was not found satisfactory.

Issue Before Court: Whether failure to maintain and furnish disclosure records (MBP-1 and DIR-8) under Section 184 attracts penalty on all directors under Section 184(4) of the Companies Act, 2013.

Tribunal Held: The ROC Bangalore held that the company had violated the provisions of Section 184 by failing to maintain and produce mandatory disclosure records for directors. It rejected the company’s contention that compliance existed for certain directors, observing that no supporting evidence was produced and that records were not made available to the Secretarial Auditor.

The adjudicating authority emphasized that the obligation to maintain such disclosures lies with the company and its directors collectively, and partial or unsubstantiated compliance cannot be accepted. Accordingly, all directors were held liable for the default for the financial year 2021–22. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 each was imposed on six directors, being the prescribed amount under Section 184(4). The directors were directed to rectify the default and pay the penalty within 90 days from receipt of the order, failing which further consequences under the Act may follow. The order also provides the right to appeal before the Regional Director within 60 days.

To Read Full Order, Download PDF Given Below

StudyCafe Membership

Join StudyCafe Membership. For More details about Membership Click Join Membership Button
Join Membership

In case of any Doubt regarding Membership you can mail us at [email protected]

Join Studycafe's WhatsApp Group or Telegram Channel for Latest Updates on Government Job, Sarkari Naukri, Private Jobs, Income Tax, GST, Companies Act, Judgements and CA, CS, ICWA, and MUCH MORE!"




Author Bio
My Recent Articles
GST: High Court dismisses Tata Steel’s writ petition, ruling company must follow statutory “alternate remedy” High Court: Establishment Cannot Avoid ESI Coverage by Showing Employees Under “Allowance” to Stay Below 10-Employee Threshold Indian company cannot invoke DTAA to apply lower tax rates than Dividend Distribution Tax: High Court Anticipatory Bail Rejected in Massive Cyber Fraud with Crypto Links Solar power generating systems composite contracts; HC Upholds 70:30 Valuation even if separate GST invoices issuedView All Posts